I was happy to afford the Minister the opportunity to outline his position. I am, however, disappointed he parroted the same rhetoric yet again. He did that against the backdrop of an absolute unanimous view in this Chamber that it makes good common sense to have a mandatory speed limit of 20 km/h in housing estates, whether public or private. It is good common sense because in all housing estates many of the residents are young families. That means children will be out playing chasing, cycling their bikes, hurling a sliotar or playing a game of football. In the absence of a mandatory low speed limit of 20 km/h, those children are endangered. It is not rocket science. Anybody with an ounce of wit who has even visited such a housing estate, much less lived in one, could tell that as a solid fact. I put it to the Minister, the Minister of State and their colleagues that if they maintain this passive approach to this legislation, they will be endangering the safety of children. It is that simple.
The Minister of State spoke about local solutions to local issues. The experience is that local authorities, despite having the discretion to lower speed limits on housing estates, have not done so bar in a very limited number of cases. That is over a period of 11 years which the Minister’s colleague confirmed in a review he carried out. The Minister knows the discretionary option has not worked.
The Minister of State spoke about having a sound evidential basis for reducing the speed limit. What about the evidence in the Visitors Gallery? The Brennan family who are in the Gallery buried their six year old child. The reason that happened was a mixture of the most awful misfortune and human miscalculation but also because of the absence of appropriate speed limits in the estate in which they live. It was not some act of God. It is not acceptable for us, on the one hand, to express our condolences to the Brennan family and then, on the other, to say we recognise in principle something should happen but we are not prepared to do it. That is not an acceptable position for the Brennan family. A speed limit of 20 km/h is very low. It has been deliberately chosen at that level because drivers should be only crawling into and snailing their way out of residential housing estates. Common sense tells us that should be the case.
The Minister says, on the one hand, that he will not oppose this legislation but, on the other, he has made it very clear this evening that he will not give it his active support. Where does that leave us? Where does that leave Government backbenchers who sincerely and honourably set out their stall, recognising speed limits need to change? More importantly, where does it leave Jake Brennan’s family and the other families in question? Last night, I spoke about Rita Malone and her eight year old son Oran from County Clare. Oran, fortunately, survived his accident but was badly injured. The event was absolutely traumatic for his family.
Rita, Rosie and the family, as well as other families, will tell the Minister that when an incident is investigated, the working assumption is that the child was at fault. One of the most compelling reasons for a mandatory reduction of the speed limit in residential housing estates is that if there is an accident that causes a catastrophic injury to a child, or worse - death - the starting point in the investigation and the first question to be asked will be how was it possible if the driver was obeying the proper speed limit of 20 km/h. Does the Minister see how it would change entirely the investigation and the outcome? Does he see how it would shape behaviour and attitudes and how it would keep children safe?
I really do not know why the Minister has dug his heels in on this issue. I am not sure that it is, but it might be about money or the price of signage. I can tell the Minister of what I am sure and what his own researched has proved, that the discretionary approach is failing badly. It failed Jake Brennan and his family. It has failed other families and, in the absence of the Minister enthusiastically supporting the legislation through Committee Stage and beyond, will fail others. I do not want any of us to have to stand here and ask ourselves, the Minister or the Minister of State why we have had another such scenario. We have an opportunity to correct a deficiency in the law. Why, in the name of goodness, will the Minister not seize it? If he imagines for one second, as I said to him last night, that this issue is going to go away, that the Jake legacy campaign or that the demand for Jake's law is going to go away, he is very badly mistaken. There is massive public and popular support for this initiative. The reason is - the same reason there should be unanimity in the Dáil Chamber - it makes sense and because it is necessary. None of us ever again wants to look into the eyes of a parent who has lost a child in a housing estate in these circumstances, knowing in our hearts that we did not do everything possible to minimise or avoid the possibility of that tragedy happening.